Case: Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2020] 2 SLR 386 (CA) – Law on Penalty Clauses

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Court of Appeal partly allows appeal against High Court decision and declines to decide on whether the law in Singapore on penalty clauses should be modified in the light of the new UK Supreme Court test for penalty clauses in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2016] AC 1172 (UKSC) (“Cavendish“) which the High Court below applied.

Continue reading “Case: Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2020] 2 SLR 386 (CA) – Law on Penalty Clauses”

Case Update: Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi (Cavendish) and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis UKSC – penalty clauses

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi (Cavendish) and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

Significance: the true test for whether a clause is unenforceable as a penalty clause is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation.

Continue reading “Case Update: Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi (Cavendish) and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis UKSC – penalty clauses”